find_related_endpoints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the input and criteria, but omits any indication of side effects (none expected), performance, or whether it's a read-only operation. The agent lacks insight into the tool's safety or cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating criteria, but overall it's concise and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., list of endpoints, their structure). It does not. The tool has five parameters including a nested auth object, and the description only briefly mentions the criteria. The agent lacks information about output format and missing details like whether the source endpoint is included.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds context about the algorithm (e.g., 'parent/child URL patterns'), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding structurally related endpoints based on specific criteria like shared resource paths, identifiers, tags, and URL patterns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_endpoints (keyword search) and get_endpoint_details (specific endpoint info).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like search_endpoints or list_endpoints. The agent must infer usage from the criteria mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.